> Your idea of a criminal seems to be hypercompetent and think of everything. No, my idea of a criminal is someone who is motivated to commit crime, and I feel

> Your idea of a criminal seems to be hypercompetent and think of everything. No, my idea of a criminal is someone who is motivated to commit crime, and I feel that we've already established in this thread that the approaches we're discussing are motivation gates far more than competence gates. > Smart, dedicated, technical people can typically make more money legally. Then who's been running all the botnets, writing cryptolocker malware, and running phishing scams for the past couple of decades? We've always had script kiddies, and now we have people using AI itself to do malicious things. Technical skill has never been an obstacle for sufficiently motivated scammers. > Your argument applies to any imperfect security technology -- aka practically all of them. Ultimately, everything has weaknesses, and with enough effort, most measures can be circumvented. But how much effort is enough varies wildly between solutions. There's a huge gulf between a "no trespassing" sign, on the one hand, and a concrete wall topped with barbed wire, on the other. The "no trespassing" sign only keeps out people willing to obey it; the concrete wall keeps out anyone who isn't willing and able to accept the time, effort, and risk necessary to climb over it or knock it down. And the point is that using digital signatures to distinguish AI-generated media from hand-made media is much closer to the "no trespassing" side of things than it is to the wall. Maybe it's analogous to a gate with a latch you can open from the other side if you reach over in just the right spot.